This is not true. I am running Fedora Core 4 *AMD64* (2.6.15), the latest Opera 9.0 weekly build and flash is working just fine. All I had to copy two files into the Opera plugins folder.
...now if only I could get font antialiasing (looking smooth) working in Opera because of this bloody Qt/GTK business...*trails off before he gets flamed*
So just patch the Skype software not to do it this check. No big deal. If it wasn't 7 minutes past midnight i'd have a look for the instructions myself in a hex editor.
On Windows, this is actually quite easy - and the reason it's so vulnerable.
I'm not entirely sure if you're suggesting this is because of the IE engine. It's worth mentioning you can of course integrate the Mozilla engine into your Windows applications just as easily using this Mozilla ActiveX Control. It uses the same API's as the various IE controls. (Oddly, whenever this control is mentioned alot of/.ers seem to think it's a way of bringing ActiveX applets to the Mozilla web browser, they obviously have no clue or read TFP).
This doesn't really make your application with embedded browser more secure/less vulnerable. Anything that let's code from 'user input' (javascript, rendering etc) run in a thread within your application is vulnerable just like anything else. Including Mozilla.
Apologies if you didn't mean 'because of the IE engine, integrated browser applications using it will be insecure'.
Alot of Web 2.0 websites allow for user contributed content. And most if not all Web 2.0 websites run from a coded server side back-end.
Both of these things make it difficult to ensure that every single (X)HTML element on your website will validate after it's been running for a while...and when you do discover bugs that break the standard it's a pain to change everything.
Take for example Slashdot, your comment, inclusive of HTML, is going to be stored in a TEXT or BLOB field and Perl filters are applied to strip out disallowed HTML and maybe fix/regenerate HTML elements. You're never going to get all the comments in the/. database to validate.
That said, this is why forums and wiki's use simpler markup like BB or wiki code.
Microsoft's Media Video's latest DRM has been cracked. Windows XP Activation has been cracked. Windows XP Genuine Advantage is cracked (look for the recent pre-beta2 IE7 leak). The Xbox (hardware and software) has been cracked, torn apart and put to hobbyist uses.
DRM is nothing new, it's just the same old concept applied to media and hardware. Nothing a couple of generations of reverse engineers haven't dealt with before.
For 98% of all the home users i know this will be an enormous reason not to get Vista.
No it won't, because 98% (Genuine Made Up Statistic (TM)) won't even know it exists or will but'll get it with their new PC's anyway and stick with it because Linux isn't ready and OSX isn't free.
Why is this modded informative? In this case Coral doesn't help in letting us see what we go to see... because the screenshots on the linked page use absolute URL's, and CoralCDN doesn't do any page rewriting.
Setup proxomitron or middleman to rewrite abs-url's on coral pages and then you're rocking.
Nah, the way to close the disconnection loophole is to build TV's with integrated aerials and DVB equipment, PC's with built in Wi-Fi antennas and chipsets, and then to blanket the whole country in a government regulated wireless WAN....then 'protect' the hardware with DRM and fine you if you disable it.
If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one.
If you receive British TV to your PC now by way of a tuner card you need a license, so I don't see why getting programming solely through the Internet should be any different.
There have been some pretty interesting developments reported recently regarding TV and video content via the Internet with my UK ISP, NTL:
By the way, the license _technically_ isn't for owning a TV, if you have no means to receive a television signal, from cable, terrestrial or satellite noone can force you to pay a penny and don't let anyone tell you otherwise!
Strange you mentioned Squirrelmail. The novelty of the Gmail interface wore off for me as well. I bought up a Tuffmail account and had some time left to run on it after getting a Gmail account, so decided to let it run before I gave my GMail address to friends.
By the time my Tuffmail account expired I was getting 170 spam messages a week to Gmail, even though i'd never used it. Factoring in the clean responsive predictable squirrelmail interface, and Gmail's login quirks with Opera (Why does Gmail have to have that ridiculous loading page? It fails all the time for me) led me to renew with Tuffmail.
The latest integrated chipset from Nvidia seem to support Shader Model 3.0, which I believe is a requirement for Aero Glass.
I ordered myself an Asus board recently with GeForce6150 + nForce430 onboard, infact it should be arriving tommorow. Will be fun to finally test some Vista beta's but to be honest I didn't have Aero Glass in mind when I made my purchase, and if it doesn't work then I won't give it a second thought.
Heh, I just noticed my choice seems to top of the line integrated from nVidia. That pleases me somewhat, since i'm not a gamer integrated graphics do me fine.
One of the bits I love most from this interview is that Opera have a build that will run from a floppy (without compression, mail, news, rss or irc compiled in). Awesome.
'Cut' makes sense, when you cut something out of a paper you leave a hole, it is missing. 'Paste' is about the only thing that doesn't make sense to me when used with 'Copy', but it'd be silly to have a seperate endpoint function for both because they would rarely be used at the same time.
That said, perhaps "Copy here" or "Move here" is what should appear in the menus, which is exactlywhat comes up when you drag and drop a file in Windows using the right mouse button.
When you develop an application you have a choice of what you do with your menu's. It's just that people _expect_ to see File, Edit, View, Tools and Help and feel alienated if they don't.
The 'Tools' menu is the one that tends to get treated as a disorganised dump, but I can't think of a better way of doing things so who am I to complain.
-
So when it's a Firefox extension it's cool beans l33t, but when it's a simple custom toolbar button barely 'written' using native ini options then it's a 'work around'?
This is native opera functionality, without a GUI.
Anyway, your buttons have worked. Thou I'm still at guessing how to make 'Cmd-W'/'Ctrl-W' to invoke that action - but not default 'Close Tab^WPage and Go Somewhere Nobody Knows Where'.
The action code for the close page/tab and show previous page/tab is "Close page,,,, Caption Close & Switch to previous page" (unquote it). Try having a look for the Opera keyboard.ini file and the ctrl-w shortcut therein and see what you can do. Remember to close Opera before hitting save (Opera might overwrite it from memory on shutdown).
I'm pretty sure you will find the answer there.
Another minor annoyance, is that Opera doesn't support native widgets - it's almost Okay on Wind0ze and Linux.
That's not really true, Opera uses the QT library and will use whatever QT theme/widget set you have going. Your mileage will vary depending on how nice the distro has setup QT and smoothed over the ugliness of the madness that is Linux GUI libraries, it's extraspecially annoying for Gnome users. I hated Opera's looks on FreeBSD and Gnome myself.
From my end-user pov Mozilla does better better job advertising Firefox extensions
That depends, I recently saw an article on Digg saying "Firefox's ad-block". In context this is highly misguiding. Extensions are 3rd party, and in no way supported by Firefox. I haven't seen Firefox advertising specific extensions as promotional features so I don't agree with you here.
with Opera visiting page with funny looking links, or with FireFox visiting addons.mozilla.org? Later option is of course better
The 'custom buttons' in Opera are much like bookmarklets in IE. They are written using something not much more complex than a hyperlink or an INI setting, and do not try to be addons. No doubt at some point creating your own easily will be integrated into the GUI, but atm Opera has alot of undocumented options and functionality.
As for extensions/addons. Opera now support widgets written in javascript, CSS, XML and HTML. To me that is a powerful enough feature. I think it's a good thing that there are no arbitrary languages like XUL in the mix or ways to install binary code via a few clicks (Thats how ActiveX went so very wrong).
As one guy have put it, if default configuration doesn't fit you, one can guess that application as a whole would not fit you too. Probably that's why I do not use Opera.
That's an attitude that people selectively apply. I don't like the way WinAMP or Windows work or install 'out the box', but I still use them. I treat my browser the same way, it's a major part of my computing experience and so deserves my tweak time.
If you prefer FF for ease of use then go for it. I am merely trying to say that what can be done in Opera isn't less than that of Firefox, just different.
Also, while I'm on the subject, why is it not possible for me to place any buttons into the menu toolbar (the one with "File, Edit, View, etc.").... It might have made sense back when ads occupied that spot
My guess would be exactly that... the ad's were there and so it wasn't practical. This is something I would like too, maybe the Opera dev's just haven't thought about it yet. 8.51 was just a quick release to ditch ad's as far as I know. This functionality might be available in 9.0, who knows.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not true. I am running Fedora Core 4 *AMD64* (2.6.15), the latest Opera 9.0 weekly build and flash is working just fine. All I had to copy two files into the Opera plugins folder.
...now if only I could get font antialiasing (looking smooth) working in Opera because of this bloody Qt/GTK business...*trails off before he gets flamed*
So just patch the Skype software not to do it this check. No big deal. If it wasn't 7 minutes past midnight i'd have a look for the instructions myself in a hex editor.
Yeah, which is why everyone who has discovered to their utter dismay should:
1) Strip out all the DRM using Windows Media cracks readily available.
2) Cancel their subscription.
Who gives a flying fark about the name?
Vista users.
What the hell is a TCP chip? Ethernet controller? Are you bonkers?
Add to that grand the cost of anti-malware subscriptions for each machine, and the cost goes up quite a bit.
Oh please, there are numerous decent **free** anti-spyware and anti-virus software for the Windows platform.
On Windows, this is actually quite easy - and the reason it's so vulnerable.
/.ers seem to think it's a way of bringing ActiveX applets to the Mozilla web browser, they obviously have no clue or read TFP).
I'm not entirely sure if you're suggesting this is because of the IE engine. It's worth mentioning you can of course integrate the Mozilla engine into your Windows applications just as easily using this Mozilla ActiveX Control. It uses the same API's as the various IE controls. (Oddly, whenever this control is mentioned alot of
This doesn't really make your application with embedded browser more secure/less vulnerable. Anything that let's code from 'user input' (javascript, rendering etc) run in a thread within your application is vulnerable just like anything else. Including Mozilla.
Apologies if you didn't mean 'because of the IE engine, integrated browser applications using it will be insecure'.
Alot of Web 2.0 websites allow for user contributed content. And most if not all Web 2.0 websites run from a coded server side back-end.
/. database to validate.
Both of these things make it difficult to ensure that every single (X)HTML element on your website will validate after it's been running for a while...and when you do discover bugs that break the standard it's a pain to change everything.
Take for example Slashdot, your comment, inclusive of HTML, is going to be stored in a TEXT or BLOB field and Perl filters are applied to strip out disallowed HTML and maybe fix/regenerate HTML elements. You're never going to get all the comments in the
That said, this is why forums and wiki's use simpler markup like BB or wiki code.
Microsoft's Media Video's latest DRM has been cracked.
Windows XP Activation has been cracked.
Windows XP Genuine Advantage is cracked (look for the recent pre-beta2 IE7 leak).
The Xbox (hardware and software) has been cracked, torn apart and put to hobbyist uses.
DRM is nothing new, it's just the same old concept applied to media and hardware. Nothing a couple of generations of reverse engineers haven't dealt with before.
For 98% of all the home users i know this will be an enormous reason not to get Vista.
No it won't, because 98% (Genuine Made Up Statistic (TM)) won't even know it exists or will but'll get it with their new PC's anyway and stick with it because Linux isn't ready and OSX isn't free.
Why is this modded informative? In this case Coral doesn't help in letting us see what we go to see... because the screenshots on the linked page use absolute URL's, and CoralCDN doesn't do any page rewriting.
Setup proxomitron or middleman to rewrite abs-url's on coral pages and then you're rocking.
Nah, the way to close the disconnection loophole is to build TV's with integrated aerials and DVB equipment, PC's with built in Wi-Fi antennas and chipsets, and then to blanket the whole country in a government regulated wireless WAN. ...then 'protect' the hardware with DRM and fine you if you disable it.
*Adds extra layer to tin foil hat*
Here is an interesting quote from the TV licensing website. Emphasis is mineIf you receive British TV to your PC now by way of a tuner card you need a license, so I don't see why getting programming solely through the Internet should be any different.
There have been some pretty interesting developments reported recently regarding TV and video content via the Internet with my UK ISP, NTL:
By the way, the license _technically_ isn't for owning a TV, if you have no means to receive a television signal, from cable, terrestrial or satellite noone can force you to pay a penny and don't let anyone tell you otherwise!
And at what point does a 'personal website/blog' become a 'personal project', then just a 'project' and then an actual thing?
That can never happen, right?
I was going to moderate you funny, but an inkling tells me you're actually serious.
Strange you mentioned Squirrelmail. The novelty of the Gmail interface wore off for me as well. I bought up a Tuffmail account and had some time left to run on it after getting a Gmail account, so decided to let it run before I gave my GMail address to friends.
By the time my Tuffmail account expired I was getting 170 spam messages a week to Gmail, even though i'd never used it. Factoring in the clean responsive predictable squirrelmail interface, and Gmail's login quirks with Opera (Why does Gmail have to have that ridiculous loading page? It fails all the time for me) led me to renew with Tuffmail.
Atleast with POP, you might be giving Google complete control of your domains MX, but you can download the messages and know that they're safe.
You can then setup Gmail to trash them from their servers, whether they do or not of course is upto them.
The latest integrated chipset from Nvidia seem to support Shader Model 3.0, which I believe is a requirement for Aero Glass.
I ordered myself an Asus board recently with GeForce6150 + nForce430 onboard, infact it should be arriving tommorow. Will be fun to finally test some Vista beta's but to be honest I didn't have Aero Glass in mind when I made my purchase, and if it doesn't work then I won't give it a second thought.
Heh, I just noticed my choice seems to top of the line integrated from nVidia. That pleases me somewhat, since i'm not a gamer integrated graphics do me fine.
Another good reason to fly the St. Georges flag on the roof during a war :) Thanks for that.
Err no, wouldn't St. Georges be the next target?
I'm pretty our flag (yes, i'm English) outdates the Red Cross. I say we set the Queen's corgies on 'em.
More like "Microsoft Windows Vista 64-bit DVD Halo 2 slipstreamed.rar".
One of the bits I love most from this interview is that Opera have a build that will run from a floppy (without compression, mail, news, rss or irc compiled in). Awesome.
'Cut' makes sense, when you cut something out of a paper you leave a hole, it is missing. 'Paste' is about the only thing that doesn't make sense to me when used with 'Copy', but it'd be silly to have a seperate endpoint function for both because they would rarely be used at the same time.
That said, perhaps "Copy here" or "Move here" is what should appear in the menus, which is exactlywhat comes up when you drag and drop a file in Windows using the right mouse button.
When you develop an application you have a choice of what you do with your menu's. It's just that people _expect_ to see File, Edit, View, Tools and Help and feel alienated if they don't.
The 'Tools' menu is the one that tends to get treated as a disorganised dump, but I can't think of a better way of doing things so who am I to complain.
-
So when it's a Firefox extension it's cool beans l33t, but when it's a simple custom toolbar button barely 'written' using native ini options then it's a 'work around'?
This is native opera functionality, without a GUI.
I'm pretty sure you will find the answer there.
That's not really true, Opera uses the QT library and will use whatever QT theme/widget set you have going. Your mileage will vary depending on how nice the distro has setup QT and smoothed over the ugliness of the madness that is Linux GUI libraries, it's extraspecially annoying for Gnome users. I hated Opera's looks on FreeBSD and Gnome myself.
That depends, I recently saw an article on Digg saying "Firefox's ad-block". In context this is highly misguiding. Extensions are 3rd party, and in no way supported by Firefox. I haven't seen Firefox advertising specific extensions as promotional features so I don't agree with you here.
The 'custom buttons' in Opera are much like bookmarklets in IE. They are written using something not much more complex than a hyperlink or an INI setting, and do not try to be addons. No doubt at some point creating your own easily will be integrated into the GUI, but atm Opera has alot of undocumented options and functionality.
As for extensions/addons. Opera now support widgets written in javascript, CSS, XML and HTML. To me that is a powerful enough feature. I think it's a good thing that there are no arbitrary languages like XUL in the mix or ways to install binary code via a few clicks (Thats how ActiveX went so very wrong).
That's an attitude that people selectively apply. I don't like the way WinAMP or Windows work or install 'out the box', but I still use them. I treat my browser the same way, it's a major part of my computing experience and so deserves my tweak time.
If you prefer FF for ease of use then go for it. I am merely trying to say that what can be done in Opera isn't less than that of Firefox, just different.
Also, while I'm on the subject, why is it not possible for me to place any buttons into the menu toolbar (the one with "File, Edit, View, etc.").... It might have made sense back when ads occupied that spot
My guess would be exactly that... the ad's were there and so it wasn't practical. This is something I would like too, maybe the Opera dev's just haven't thought about it yet. 8.51 was just a quick release to ditch ad's as far as I know. This functionality might be available in 9.0, who knows.
I just clued in someone else with the same urge, see my post -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=176645&cid=146 68362